What Is Trump Worth to Twitter? One Analyst Estimates $2B(bloomberg.com)
bloomberg.com
What Is Trump Worth to Twitter? One Analyst Estimates $2B
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-08-17/what-is-trump-worth-to-twitter-one-analyst-estimates-2-billion
90 comments
Twitter really feels like a broadcast / subscribe network to me. Unless you're a celebrity, you aren't getting significant interaction on there, and interaction is what I use social networks for. Whenever I log in there it is just a news feed of who made the most noise today. I can leave a witty comment and some people might see it, maybe a few more would argue against it if it's incendiary, but at the end of the day it's mostly just consuming. It leaves me wanting something more and because of that I almost never use my Twitter account.
The amazing thing about Twitter is even though it really is publish/subscribe for celebrities, many people following celebrity feeds feel like it's two-way communication.
Which is crazy.
Which is crazy.
It does rather cement in people's mind the association that Twitter is now mostly a haven for bullying, trolling and harassment. Something POTUS uses twitter for regularly.
Twitter had been trying to shake off the negative image it had acquired, but Trump's unchecked behaviour is rather putting paid to those hopes.
Question is if there's sustainable business in being the largest interpersonal abuse platform on the net.
Twitter had been trying to shake off the negative image it had acquired, but Trump's unchecked behaviour is rather putting paid to those hopes.
Question is if there's sustainable business in being the largest interpersonal abuse platform on the net.
They've been trying to shake it off? How exactly? All I see is complete inaction from Twitter.
Twitter is really a terribly managed business on so many levels, including the one you referred to. It's a mystery as to why their institutional investors haven't staged a coup and brought in new management.
They actually did.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-moves-dickcostolo-...
And several times more.
Investors are looking at increasing revenues and/or valuation, either is a hard thing to do with Twitter no matter who is at the helm.
http://www.reuters.com/article/us-twitter-moves-dickcostolo-...
And several times more.
Investors are looking at increasing revenues and/or valuation, either is a hard thing to do with Twitter no matter who is at the helm.
because last time they tried that it didn't even work?
:) I get that - and clearly the move was a failure. In which case, the blame falls squarely on the board.
Twitter has a business model/product model problem, among other things.
Twitter has a business model/product model problem, among other things.
I think the product is exactly what the users want, actually, though it seems to generally result in a toxic shithole of all-against-all.
I think the business model problem is a direct consequence of the product succeeding at being what it is. That's not really a very good environment for "brand engagement" or whatever kind of consumerist brainslug implantation program they think they might use it for.
A radical redesign of the product could probably make it a better advertising platform. The question they're facing I think is really that they are being pulled in two directions: increase (or at least retain) the number of users on the platform pulling opposite make the platform more appealing to advertisers and people who have discretionary income.
They could hire me as a consultant maybe and I would instruct them that being the world's greatest engine for social strife is not an admirable product design goal.
I think the business model problem is a direct consequence of the product succeeding at being what it is. That's not really a very good environment for "brand engagement" or whatever kind of consumerist brainslug implantation program they think they might use it for.
A radical redesign of the product could probably make it a better advertising platform. The question they're facing I think is really that they are being pulled in two directions: increase (or at least retain) the number of users on the platform pulling opposite make the platform more appealing to advertisers and people who have discretionary income.
They could hire me as a consultant maybe and I would instruct them that being the world's greatest engine for social strife is not an admirable product design goal.
Twitter created some kind of council made up almost entirely of people like @femfreq in response to #GamerGate and its aftermath. Supporters applauded it as taking responsibility and promoting a message of diversity and good things, detractors saw it as the end of Twitter-as-we-know-it.
I think this happened around the time some right-wing accounts were suspended or suffering weird "glitches" (e.g. sudden massive decreases in follower counts) but I'm not sure what the relation between that and the supposed oversight council was.
Other than the initial drama I don't think anything ever came from that. At some point Twitter sent promoted tweets pointing out the block feature with a nice animation about making nasty people go away but needless to say that wasn't even remotely helpful.
I think this happened around the time some right-wing accounts were suspended or suffering weird "glitches" (e.g. sudden massive decreases in follower counts) but I'm not sure what the relation between that and the supposed oversight council was.
Other than the initial drama I don't think anything ever came from that. At some point Twitter sent promoted tweets pointing out the block feature with a nice animation about making nasty people go away but needless to say that wasn't even remotely helpful.
Twitter's Trust and Safety Council is a little bit SJW, but mostly it's there to keep celebrities from being bothered so much they stop tweeting. You can be as mean as you want to a nobody, but tweet something even a little bit derogatory to a celebrity and your account is history.
That explains the punishments. Every case I'm aware of involved a celebrity, though not always directly. There's been a lot of toxicity on Twitter recently but fewer scandals about celebrities (except Taylor Swift deleting her account).
It's not only Twitter. It's a phenomenon on other countries on other platforms too.
Basically, they have become a tool for conformity through approval seeking, shaming and bullying.
But most sadly it's people throwing any opinion and every opinion to see what sticks.
Basically, they have become a tool for conformity through approval seeking, shaming and bullying.
But most sadly it's people throwing any opinion and every opinion to see what sticks.
Twitter could just ban Trump but Twitter needs Trump more than Trump needs Twitter so it'll never happen
Has Trump ever doxxed anyone? Encouraged others to dox or harass? I hate him but AFAICT most of his Tweets are simply disliking public figures, which isn't generally considered harassment.
This is false, Donald has harrassed an 18 year old girl on twitter for asking him a question in the primary:
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/65389793993336422... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/65396140136346828...
Which led to her getting harassed by his followers: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/this-is-what-happens...
https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/65389793993336422... https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/65396140136346828...
Which led to her getting harassed by his followers: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/this-is-what-happens...
It can't be false: it's a question, not an assertion.
In the tweets you linked to, he mentioned someone who asked him a question had worked for his opponent.
How is that harassment?
Where does he incite others to harass?
In the tweets you linked to, he mentioned someone who asked him a question had worked for his opponent.
How is that harassment?
Where does he incite others to harass?
Why wouldn't it be harassment bullying a public figure?
I'm not agreeing with the assertion in this case, but there are very different standards for people "of public interest" and ordinary common folk. This distinction is made in a lot of places, including European privacy laws e.g. in Germany.
His tweets are actually considered violence by some. But to answer your question, he has never doxxed anyone.
People who consider words to be violence aren't worth paying attention to, particularly since these are the same people who think violence in the service of their own ideology is speech.
I'm coming to the conclusion that we can have rapid, thoughtless discourse à la Twitter or painfully slow communal deliberation of views and opinions drawn from a common, if gate-kept, set of facts; the kind of deliberation that underpins democracy.
I don't say this flippantly. I just don't think the difference in virality between outrage, which requires no substantiation to provoke, and argument fares well with scaling.
I don't say this flippantly. I just don't think the difference in virality between outrage, which requires no substantiation to provoke, and argument fares well with scaling.
You make a good point. Part of the problem with Twitter when it comes to discussion is that it does not lend itself to drawn out lengthy presentations, but the opposite. And in addition, it allows you to throw mud, unsubstantiated, as truth.
It's like "yo momma" jokes. Whoever is quick to wit with sharp tongue wins, and merit is disproportionally disregarded.
It's like "yo momma" jokes. Whoever is quick to wit with sharp tongue wins, and merit is disproportionally disregarded.
Almost every medium lets you throw mud, sans substantiation, to great effect.
Limiting mud-throwing to 140 characters isn't effective anymore than allowing more than 140 characters of mud conveyance.
The problem may be that people need to be convinced (one way or the other) now in less than 140 characters, in which case we're all doomed, as very few stories worth telling can be told in <140 characters.
Drawn out - or reasoned, moderate, thoughtful, civil, researched exchanges - are almost a thing of the past. No one has time for that kind of luxury anymore.
Limiting mud-throwing to 140 characters isn't effective anymore than allowing more than 140 characters of mud conveyance.
The problem may be that people need to be convinced (one way or the other) now in less than 140 characters, in which case we're all doomed, as very few stories worth telling can be told in <140 characters.
Drawn out - or reasoned, moderate, thoughtful, civil, researched exchanges - are almost a thing of the past. No one has time for that kind of luxury anymore.
Twitter has changed a lot, particularly throughout this past election cycle.
Once twitter made the change to showcase News in the "Moments" section of their platform a few years ago, Twitter content started getting very politicized and more news-centric.
I really like twitter, and ultimately what you see on your TL is directly who/what you follow, however Twitter's change to try to be a "live news conversation" has really changed the feeling of Twitter and politics are really dominating most of the conversations on Twitter at this moment.
Once twitter made the change to showcase News in the "Moments" section of their platform a few years ago, Twitter content started getting very politicized and more news-centric.
I really like twitter, and ultimately what you see on your TL is directly who/what you follow, however Twitter's change to try to be a "live news conversation" has really changed the feeling of Twitter and politics are really dominating most of the conversations on Twitter at this moment.
The worst part, as a non-American, it's always implied you should care and take action but there's practically nothing you can do or actually have to do so you're left feeling guilty, miserable and unfulfilled.
This was already pretty much the case before but coupled with the rise of outrage culture and the politicisation of Twitter, it's like a constant emotional drain. I find myself having strong opinions on topics I don't care about and have no stake in, just because people on the Internet should at each other, telling everyone they're a bad person if they aren't upset.
This was already pretty much the case before but coupled with the rise of outrage culture and the politicisation of Twitter, it's like a constant emotional drain. I find myself having strong opinions on topics I don't care about and have no stake in, just because people on the Internet should at each other, telling everyone they're a bad person if they aren't upset.
> and politics are really dominating most of the conversations on Twitter at this moment.
I believe this to be societal. Many people simply want to get likes & RTs - which are easy grabs if you post e.g. a photo of Trump blindly looking into the sun, or whatever. People like to hate Trump, people like to laugh, so naturally they will post stuff that makes people laugh about Trump, therefore they all get likes & RTs, while your feed remains a firehose of "dump Trump" and memes.
I believe this to be societal. Many people simply want to get likes & RTs - which are easy grabs if you post e.g. a photo of Trump blindly looking into the sun, or whatever. People like to hate Trump, people like to laugh, so naturally they will post stuff that makes people laugh about Trump, therefore they all get likes & RTs, while your feed remains a firehose of "dump Trump" and memes.
It's really the perfection of the Skinner box, where you carry this device around in your pocket, and you can get instant dopamine hits, and it even feels justified on some level because politics is truly important. But ultimately it is a waste of time because it adds nothing to the political dialogue except increasing polarization.
I don't think it had anything much to do with the Moments feature.
Twitter's trending tab was quitenssential in starting specific conversations on twitter.
It's what highlights particular events such award shows; and what starts site wide conversations by making a hashtag popular. The trending aspect of twitter was (and still is to some degree) what got everyone on twitter talking and engaging on the same topics.
The trending tab slowly turned into the Moments tab, and instead of just highlighting hashtags they also highlighted current events and news (the most popular ones being political at the moment)
Now instead of engaging people in popular hashtags twitter is engaging them in currents events(news), and this what dominates the majority of conversations. So I do believe the Moments tab had a lot to do with the change in tone on the platform.
It's what highlights particular events such award shows; and what starts site wide conversations by making a hashtag popular. The trending aspect of twitter was (and still is to some degree) what got everyone on twitter talking and engaging on the same topics.
The trending tab slowly turned into the Moments tab, and instead of just highlighting hashtags they also highlighted current events and news (the most popular ones being political at the moment)
Now instead of engaging people in popular hashtags twitter is engaging them in currents events(news), and this what dominates the majority of conversations. So I do believe the Moments tab had a lot to do with the change in tone on the platform.
The only reason I still have Twitter is to see what crazy thing trump will say next! I've been saying for a while that if trump were to stop tweeting the usage would plummet
I don't actually think thats true. Most people aren't on Twitter. The media is and they report in their own channels. Twitters problems or success has nothing to do with Trump what so ever.
Maybe that is also the reason why Trump's account was not banned for violating the terms of service yet?
https://twitter.com/kalpenn/status/896013769410740224?ref_sr...
https://twitter.com/kalpenn/status/896013769410740224?ref_sr...
Or maybe its just because he is the President of the United States. I find it incredible that some people feel so strongly that these rules and terms have to apply perfectly equally to everyone. That's not reality.
If Twitter existed in 1939, would Kal Penn be mad at Roosevelt for threatening Hitler with an invasion if he didn't stop his shit? Sounds weird, but all externalities considered I doubt it.
Also weird that Kal didn't speak out when a state senator called for Trump's assassination on Facebook [1]. Sure is against Facebook's ToS.
Point being: Kal, and the general anti-Trump population, doesn't actually care about breaking Twitter's ToS. They don't care about any individual action he takes. They use those actions to reinforce this immutable evil picture of Trump in their head, and then look for any excuse to get that zinger in on him because it will play well with the liberal bubble they live in.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017...
If Twitter existed in 1939, would Kal Penn be mad at Roosevelt for threatening Hitler with an invasion if he didn't stop his shit? Sounds weird, but all externalities considered I doubt it.
Also weird that Kal didn't speak out when a state senator called for Trump's assassination on Facebook [1]. Sure is against Facebook's ToS.
Point being: Kal, and the general anti-Trump population, doesn't actually care about breaking Twitter's ToS. They don't care about any individual action he takes. They use those actions to reinforce this immutable evil picture of Trump in their head, and then look for any excuse to get that zinger in on him because it will play well with the liberal bubble they live in.
[1] https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2017...
Are you singling out someone prominent for criticism about how they singled out someone prominent in an ironic way or was it by accident?
Is Kal Pen famous or something? I just copied the name from the Twitter profile.
He's at least a B list celebrity, "Harold & Kumar Go to White Castle".
He was also a member of the Obama administration.
Seriously -- Everyone knows that all tweeters are equal, but some tweeters are more equal than others!
(...With apologies to George Orwell)
(...With apologies to George Orwell)
That is one hell of a stretch.
Or perhaps because it's Kim Jong Un he's threatening. Let's face it, not only is it a mere warning but it's also aimed at perhaps the one person in the world more disliked than Trump.
If Trump was threatening a random American citizen who was not an evil dictator and doing so in a direct manner... well that may have been a different story.
If Trump was threatening a random American citizen who was not an evil dictator and doing so in a direct manner... well that may have been a different story.
What has trump done that violated their ToS?
Threatening other people?
That's absurd and petty. First, it was a warning not a threat, nor is Trump merely a private citizen with no responsibility to our national defense.
I believe that it's not illegal for the president to do that. (Whether you or I like it or not.)
It is however illegal for me to do it.
And that's likely where the TOS rule comes from.
We're struggling with a spirit of the law, letter of the law issue here.
It is however illegal for me to do it.
And that's likely where the TOS rule comes from.
We're struggling with a spirit of the law, letter of the law issue here.
Right, because the State is the entity with a Monopoly on Violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_on_violence
The correct, proper, and original formulation by Max Weber is the monopoly on the legitimate use of violence.
The alternatives are either granting all parties equal right to any chosen violence they choose to enact, granting the right to some particular entity, or attempting ... and by what means specifically without a state and sanction of legitimate violence ... to bar all use of violence.
Note too: legitimacy does not mean unlimited or capricious. It does, however, mean that the sanction of violence originates from, and is enacted either directly by, or through licence (e.g., self-defence) from, the state.
Misuse of this term is rampant, particularly among so-called Libertarians.
The alternatives are either granting all parties equal right to any chosen violence they choose to enact, granting the right to some particular entity, or attempting ... and by what means specifically without a state and sanction of legitimate violence ... to bar all use of violence.
Note too: legitimacy does not mean unlimited or capricious. It does, however, mean that the sanction of violence originates from, and is enacted either directly by, or through licence (e.g., self-defence) from, the state.
Misuse of this term is rampant, particularly among so-called Libertarians.
"The monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force, also known as the monopoly on violence"
I think the "legitimate" is implied - a State is a thing that creates Legitimacy and enforces it through Violence. To supplement this it monopolizes Violence by inflicting Violence on those who commit it without Legitimacy.
I think the "legitimate" is implied - a State is a thing that creates Legitimacy and enforces it through Violence. To supplement this it monopolizes Violence by inflicting Violence on those who commit it without Legitimacy.
The overwhelming majority of usage online, including in this thread, strongly suggests otherwise.
The fact was an insight to me when I happened to stumble across it (researching other aspects of Weber, as it happens).
The fact was an insight to me when I happened to stumble across it (researching other aspects of Weber, as it happens).
Sorry but I'm not seeing what I'm missing.
That's the system yes. I'm not particularly fond of it, neither am I defending it. It is what it is.
It's not about legality.
Twitter is not the court or the police.
It's a private company.
Twitter is not the court or the police.
It's a private company.
If the TOS is based on the law, i.e. inciting violence etc. (which it likely is) then read the rest of my comment.
The President can threaten violence (and should not be hindered by private companies to do so) because he was elected to be able to do so. Whether you agree with his ability to kill in defense (etc.) or not.
The President can threaten violence (and should not be hindered by private companies to do so) because he was elected to be able to do so. Whether you agree with his ability to kill in defense (etc.) or not.
Illegal no... against the ToS yes.
It is illegal to attempt to make foreign policy as a private citizen.
---
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
---
Any citizen of the United States, wherever he may be, who, without authority of the United States, directly or indirectly commences or carries on any correspondence or intercourse with any foreign government or any officer or agent thereof, with intent to influence the measures or conduct of any foreign government or of any officer or agent thereof, in relation to any disputes or controversies with the United States, or to defeat the measures of the United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act
I don't think the President should be hindered by a private company to do his job. Whether we agree with how exactly he's doing it or not.
The TOS is clearly based on law, it's legal for him to do it, so in essence the TOS regarding to his legal rights, shouldn't (in spirit) apply to him.
Now if he was doing something that he doesn't have the right to do, i.e. inciting violence against a private person, he'll break the TOS.
If all you want to say is that what he has done is strictly against the text of the TOS then sure I'll agree. But I don't think it matters.
The TOS is clearly based on law, it's legal for him to do it, so in essence the TOS regarding to his legal rights, shouldn't (in spirit) apply to him.
Now if he was doing something that he doesn't have the right to do, i.e. inciting violence against a private person, he'll break the TOS.
If all you want to say is that what he has done is strictly against the text of the TOS then sure I'll agree. But I don't think it matters.
The president hardly seems to be "doing his job" on Twitter.
I honestly don't think my or your opinion matters with regards to that.
If he tells a foreign official anything at any point in time whether it be email, phone call, twitter etc. it's official. He can't claim that he was taking a break. He can delete a tweet, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
If he tells a foreign official anything at any point in time whether it be email, phone call, twitter etc. it's official. He can't claim that he was taking a break. He can delete a tweet, but that doesn't mean that it didn't happen.
This is probably indicative of need for a way of better wording a ToS, which probably don't mean to stop the judicial system, police or military from doing their jobs, or for that matter boxers or MMArtists.
They can't arbitrarily enforce those standards on his account without kicking a lot of other people off:
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/346996-miss...
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/kathy-griffin-spark...
edit: The first one is actually Facebook, but it's typical of a lot of online discourse, found it in a bunch of tweets threatening Trump.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/346996-miss...
http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/kathy-griffin-spark...
edit: The first one is actually Facebook, but it's typical of a lot of online discourse, found it in a bunch of tweets threatening Trump.
But yet they do. I've seen people threaten others, organize tracking/stalking/suggesting violence of an individual (antifa tracking conservative reporters in Paris), people who try to stir up race violence. Still on the platform.
Feature.
That's a pretty stupid example. If I say I'll beat the crap out of anyone that hurts my family is that considered a threat[1] too?
[1]: Cause in my mind it's not a threat. It's a guarantee.
[1]: Cause in my mind it's not a threat. It's a guarantee.
[deleted]
If I was Trump, I would short twitter stock and delete my account.
Access to his millions of followers is worth more than the money he will make following your strategy.
The next day, I would buy twitter stocks and create another account :)
I love it. Leaves him venerable to the FCC though.
However he could invest heavily into a startup competitor. Something like Bright Bart + Twitter, then delete his account and move his Tweets onto a platform his base would support and that he owns a significant percentage of.
They could either continue to develop this Alt-Right Twitter, or sell quickly back to Twitter, and no FCC regulations would have been violated.
However he could invest heavily into a startup competitor. Something like Bright Bart + Twitter, then delete his account and move his Tweets onto a platform his base would support and that he owns a significant percentage of.
They could either continue to develop this Alt-Right Twitter, or sell quickly back to Twitter, and no FCC regulations would have been violated.
Twitter is needed precisely because there is nothing like twitter.
Where else can you have completely clueless unfactual stream of consciousness garbage being sprouted 24/7?
As a libertarian I think this garbage is as much a requirement for a free and stable society as alt-right, neo-left and msm outlets. It provides views and opinions that you don't want to hear but that you probably should know about.
Where else can you have completely clueless unfactual stream of consciousness garbage being sprouted 24/7?
As a libertarian I think this garbage is as much a requirement for a free and stable society as alt-right, neo-left and msm outlets. It provides views and opinions that you don't want to hear but that you probably should know about.
Twitter is the White House press secretary. At least the deleted tweets are being preserved (according to the WH anyway).
https://www.theverge.com/2017/4/3/15168956/donald-trump-twit...
There is no correlation between WH claims and facts.
How long until he starts running sponsored posts?
We're way past that point.
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/new...
Ultimately, Trump is what will kill Twitter. All the awful, dreadful, inane and stupid things, all coalesced into the most powerful twitter abuser of them all. Thanks Twitter!
He brings a lot of attention, Trump switching to another platform would be a real blow for Twitter. If it is to a platform more friendly to free speech, it could be real competition for Twitter.
I'm surprised somebody like Steve Bannon hasn't tried to launch an alternative and move Trump to it.
Trump moving to Gab would be interesting both for the effect it would have on Twitter’s valuation and on the media profile of Gab as a Twitter-like service. Trump would have the ‘pull’ to draw attention to Gab and the media would feel themselves compelled to cover it.
Gab was booted off the Google Play store already
https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/17/alt-social-network-gab-boo...
Google made this statement :
> In order to be on the Play Store, social networking apps need to demonstrate a sufficient level of moderation, including for content that encourages violence and advocates hate against groups of people. This is a long-standing rule and clearly stated in our developer policies. Developers always have the opportunity to appeal a suspension and may have their apps reinstated if they’ve addressed the policy violations and are compliant with our Developer Program Policies.
Somehow though, Twitter remains so we can enjoy the friendly discourse on the hashtag #KillWhites
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23KillWhites&src=typd
You don't even need to type it, enter #KillAll into the search box and enjoy the auto suggestion
Rules for thee, not for me.
https://techcrunch.com/2017/08/17/alt-social-network-gab-boo...
Google made this statement :
> In order to be on the Play Store, social networking apps need to demonstrate a sufficient level of moderation, including for content that encourages violence and advocates hate against groups of people. This is a long-standing rule and clearly stated in our developer policies. Developers always have the opportunity to appeal a suspension and may have their apps reinstated if they’ve addressed the policy violations and are compliant with our Developer Program Policies.
Somehow though, Twitter remains so we can enjoy the friendly discourse on the hashtag #KillWhites
https://twitter.com/search?q=%23KillWhites&src=typd
You don't even need to type it, enter #KillAll into the search box and enjoy the auto suggestion
Rules for thee, not for me.
Interesting, because Googles "AI" deleted war crime evidence from Youtube recently out of "good intentions".
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14998429
This isn't AI, it's just a stupid search engine.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14998429
This isn't AI, it's just a stupid search engine.
Update: Youtube "AI" censoring US Army destroying Nuremburg swatzika: https://boingboing.net/2017/08/14/film-of-u-s-army-destroyin...
Something reeks here, and it's not because Google and Apple are taking the moral high ground.
This is strictly related to money, and I am long on alt-tech platforms like Gab and Hatreon.
This is strictly related to money, and I am long on alt-tech platforms like Gab and Hatreon.
I think something like that would be a tipping point for Gab.
Trump signs up. His most active (often non-tech) followers follow. The media pundits have to be there. Their media outlets follow. Who's missing? The companies that have "social media strategies" don't matter.. but you can be sure the social media consultants will have to follow.
Trump signs up. His most active (often non-tech) followers follow. The media pundits have to be there. Their media outlets follow. Who's missing? The companies that have "social media strategies" don't matter.. but you can be sure the social media consultants will have to follow.
Wasn't Gab.ai made by an HNer who got booted from YC or something? I don't quite remember the full story, but I think it started when he called someone a cuckold or something?
Yes:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12934388
Though I think it was because of this tweet:
http://imgur.com/a/vnbvT
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12934388
Though I think it was because of this tweet:
http://imgur.com/a/vnbvT
I'm honestly surprised that Gab hasn't officially tried to persuade Trump to move over yet. Or that other alternative platforms (like Minds) haven't done the same. For a free speech Twitter alternative that wants mass appeal, getting the US president to move over would be like winning the lottery.
In amateur photography there is bokeh to kick around, in Twitter it's throwing anything and everything to either get a rise out of people or to get approving nods.
It's been reduced to a popularity contest and the jocks and their fans only want their voices and no one else's.
Even simply informational stuff is presented as some big expose and we should be aghast at the realization. It's hard to keep on digesting this kind of communication. Nevermind actual politics which degenerates almost exponentially fast.
OMG, they've been putting wax on old apples to make them look appealing on market shelves!
This graduating class is having one if the most challenging times getting offers and it's because [reason].